This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command
- From: <Paul_Koning at Dell dot com>
- To: <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>
- Cc: <eliz at gnu dot org>, <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:42:12 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1437761993-18758-1-git-send-email-sergiodj at redhat dot com> <55B2850D dot 6030306 at ericsson dot com> <87k2tp5q3g dot fsf at redhat dot com> <838ua52wmp dot fsf at gnu dot org> <87fv4d5p8l dot fsf at redhat dot com> <837fpp2uz5 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <94F6A309-A197-4A71-BEB9-42E009DD1EB5 at dell dot com> <55B2A24B dot 8000209 at ericsson dot com>
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> On 15-07-24 04:25 PM, Paul_Koning@Dell.com wrote:
>> But if you omit a shell, is the user of that shell blocked from using gdb? Thatâs not a good failure mode. It seems to me that omitting a non-shell is much more forgiving: all that happens is that you donât get the friendly error message.
>>
>> So that says the explicit list should be of non-shells.
>>
>> paul
>
> With Eli's suggestion, if SHELL is valid but gdb doesn't know about it (e.g.
> SHELL=/my/super/duper/shell), it will fall back to using /bin/sh. So no,
> the user wouldn't be blocked.
>
>
Not unless the features in that unknown shell are needed for the application to function correctly.
paul